Anybody can read what I posted earlier to see the clear and deliberate the misrepresentation and continuation to include his drawings and refer and compare them. Updated or not, it is inexcusable and deceptive. They do not belong in any modern day science textbook at all. I will repeat some of these earlier statements, in case anybody is in any doubts as to what these are implying:

E.g. “In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.” (Textbook I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 416, 1181:pg. 416) The basis for the text’s claims that the law holds is the fraudulent Haeckel-derived drawings, which obscure the differences between the embryos.

2) The drawings are presented as valid evidence for the modern theory of evolution, and are not merely used to provide historical context. They come from a section entitled "Embryonic Development and Vertebrate Evolution." The caption reads: “Embryonic development of vertebrates. Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adult.” (pg. 1181)

In the 1998 textbook - The caption states that the picture supports common descent and evolution. There is no indication in the caption that this is merely a part of history, but there is every indication that this is how embryos really look and that the drawings provide evidence for the modern theory of evolution.

Textbook IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 223:
The text treats these drawings as valid evidence for the modern theory of evolution, stating: "The earliest stages of these three embryos look so similar that it is difficult to tell them apart" (pg. 223), and again on the next page, "As you can also see, studies of developing embryos revealed even more surprising similarities." (pg. 224) This is from the chapter on "Natural Selection," from the section entitled "A Riddle: Life's Diversity and Connections." The presentation is not about historical context.

And then we wonder why there are people out there who still refer to this as valid evidence, like the young guy who was debating furiously on some site about this and using Hackel's "evidences" as an example. Can you blame them with this stuff being presented like this in modern day textbooks!

If this is about seeking truth, one should not support these deceptions or "disguised" deceptions on any level, unless they too are happy with what these textbooks are implying/stating.

You've admitted that vestigial organs "may" provide some other function today am I right? My point about the vestigial organs was to point out that clearly they provide VERY important functions, and presenting this from qualified people, so others can see exactly what they are needed for and why. People get the wrong impression easily from evolutionists, because of the way they present (or misrepresent). What makes you think these are vestigial in the first place? What did the appendix once do? What did the tonsils once do? If these are vestigial.

Here is a website about vestigial organs. Live Science - "The top ten useless limbs (and other vestigial organs).....hmmm!!!!! Note the word "useless" and how they've used it? http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs-1.html

All you have to do is take a look at the ignorant and misleading claims this makes on these apparently next to useless functions,. Mentions the whale "leg bones" and the apparent uselessness of the "tail bone" too. I've already given you the importance of their functions in my earlier post, that clearly points out how they work and what they do for us.

JERRY COYNE is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, where he works on diverse areas of evolutionary genetics. He is the author (with H. Allen Orr) of Speciation.

Now this is what he says: "Evolution is also shown by the presence of vestigial organs, like the nonfunctional pelvis of whales".

I repeat NON-FUNCTIONAL. I have already shown you how important the whale pevlis and so-called "legs" are. No, this guy clearly doesn't know much about biology, but they seem to have a great influence on what others believe regardless.

Usually, scientists will claim now that "they have no "known" function" This is a way scientists can cover themselves in the event that a function is discovered sometime in the future. But as you can see, the ongoing misrepresentations and trying to have us believe that even if they are still 'functional" they are still vestigial....again assuming they are vestigial in the first place. However, one can easily get the impression vestigial means useless as this is often the way it is represented or hinted at, but when you catch them on it, and describe the functions of these "vestigial organs" you just get more back-peddling and softening of previous statements (or what they were previously implying).

Wiki says this:


Note: "may retain lesser function or develop minor new ones". As we can see by the earlier posts regarding so-called vestigial organs, they serve very important functions indeed and instead appear to be designed to perform their exact task.

Definition of Vestigial organ from "biomedicine" http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-dictionary/Vestigial_organ/





They imply that particular organs are either no longer of use, or are at least reduced in function or function differently from their original function (implying that evolutionists know what they once were and did).

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines ‘vestigial’ as ‘degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.’ The World Book Encyclopedia 2000 says: ‘Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor’ (emphasis added). This was clearly the understanding of evolutionary zoologist Scadding. He pointed out ‘…vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory’, precisely because it is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has no function; rather, it could have a function we don’t know about [S.R. Scadding, ‘Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution?’ Evolutionary Theory 5:173–176, 1981].

Churchill’s Dictionary defines vestigial as an organ that has ‘no obvious function’, and notes that the word vestigial derives from the Latin vestigium, ‘meaning footprint, imprint, track, trace’.4 A standard dictionary of biology defines the word vestigial as follows:
‘An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms. Examples include the wings of flightless birds, the limb girdles of snakes, the appendix and the ear muscles of humans, and the scale leaves of parasitic flowering plants. The presence of vestigial organs is thought to indicate that the ancestors of the organism possessed fully functioning organs … .’5

Vestigiality
The most common explanation is that the appendix is a vestigial structure </wiki/Vestigial_structure> with no absolute purpose. In The Story of Evolution <http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1043>, Joseph McCabe </wiki/Joseph_McCabe> argued thus:
The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.


It seems evolutionists, now want to re-define ‘vestigial’ to mean simply ‘reduced or altered in function’. Thus even valuable, functioning organs (consistent with design) might now be called ‘vestigial’. It turns out that scientists actually used the word “vestigial,” not to mean a “useless” organ, but instead to say, in reality, “we’re ignorant of what this organ’s function is at this point in time.” As our ignorance wanes, so, ironically, does the number of alleged vestigial organs.




Quotes on here were given for Linda, who then downgraded this practice and called it "quote mining" and that it is irrelevant, now you are asking me to go hunt an actual quote down from a biologist on here to prove to you that these things were called vestigial?

I would have thought that the information given was more than enough already. Why else do evolutionists continue to make claims about vestigial organs?

Where do people's beliefs in vestigial organs arise from then Linear? I'd be interested to find that out. If not from biologists...who? Let me know. It seems the more they find out, the less these organs become vestigial. Lots of face saving! You'll note that the modern day science textbooks examples I gave you of the embryo already used the "gill slits" and "tail" "proofs" again! Whose writing that stuff if they're not biologists? Evolution is the rise of new, different, and functioning organs, not the wasting away of already-present, complex organs.



First of all, great historians use figurative language i.e. figure of speech, to dramatise their writing which is none-the-less truthful for that. The prodical son is announced clearly as a parable (a fictional story with a moral attached) i.e. forgiveness. It is introduced as an extended similie (comparison). It is clear also when Jesus is telling a story or factual direct reality. One of his phrases was "Amen, amen I say to you" (before giving us plain and often painful fact). The prodical son, if I'm not mistaken, was not given a name either, neither was the father! The story therefore could be applied to anybody! St Paul, writes about Jesus being the second Adam in such strong terms that there is no doubt about the original Adam or the original fall from grace. Jesus refers to Moses and states that "if they believe not Moses, how will they believe that one rose from the dead". There are references from the new testament to the old that refer to eachother and their reality and confirm both. e.g. "As in the days of Noah, so will it be when the son of man returns". The prodical son was an obvious example, but still strongly reflected reality. E.g. the example He used with the sheep (when one goes astray, the shepherd going in search of the lost). It may have been a parable, but it was clearly a reality example! Even the "stories" Jesus told, always have their basis in truth. Jesus referred to the time of Noah as happening once again, near the time of his return and we can see that being played out today. The bible warns time and time again what happens in cases of widespread rampant sin and when things become so unbalanced that God finally acts out His justice and so it will be again. People then scoffed and they are scoffing today in much the same way.

There is an introduction that indicates Jesus is telling a story and at the end of the story, He explains it to His listeners. I think alot of common sense is also involved and the use of figures of speech, such as "metaphor", "simile", "hyperbole" etc does not diminish, but rather enhances the truth in a dramatic way. Common sense can sort out the differences between actual truth and a story with a moral or lesson. You'll also notice that real names are used for real people and the real events that surround them. Jesus refers back to them sometimes in the new testament. Just as the prophets of the old testament referred to Christ in highly prophetic language!

When I read the bible, I become aware by the way it's written as to whether it is a parable or a direct warning/fact. If one does not wish to accept God at His word and they want to play-down, twist, mix-up, water-down, then they do so at their own peril. I believe God has made it very clear throughout the bible for anybody (even a child) to gain more than enough to understand. Unless we become as little children, we will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.